Think Limbaugh is Bad?

Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this one. From CNN.com

--------------------------

GAZA CITY (AP) -- A Mickey Mouse lookalike who preached Islamic domination on a Hamas-affiliated children's television program was the victim of a pretend beating death in the show's final episode Friday.

In the final skit, the "Farfour" character was killed by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, the mouse called the Israeli a "terrorist."

"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added.

The weekly show, featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice, had attracted worldwide attention because the character urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It was broadcast on Hamas-affiliated Al Aqsa TV.

Station officials said Friday that Farfour was taken off the air to make room for new programs.
Station manager Mohammed Bilal said he did not know what would be shown instead.

Israeli officials have denounced the program, "Tomorrow's Pioneers," as incendiary and outrageous.

The program was also opposed by the state-run Palestinian Broadcasting Corp., which is controlled by Fatah, Hamas' rival.

Healthcare Food For Thought

If the Cuban healthcare system is so great, as Moore intimates, why does my wife's family have to send money and medicine to their relatives down there to literally keep them alive?

MediaMatters 1888

MediaMatters for America has uncovered that the San Francisco Examiner has uncritically published the statement by Samuel Clemens that, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress."

MediaMatters has debunked this false allegation by showing that no less than four members of Congress have no criminal record whatsoever. Furthermore, Clemens wrote this commentary under the alias Mark Twain which, in our opinion, intends to confuse the reader as to the actual author.

-------------------------------------------------

Silly, eh? Now go back and read the MM Coulter piece.

Bullshit Abounds

From an MSNBC article....

"A half century of desegregation law _ and racial tension _ was laid bare for the Democrats hours before they met. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court clamped historic new limits on school desegregation plans."

Utter crap. SCOTUS actually used Brown v. Brown and the 14th Amendment to make today's ruling. There were no limits established; rather the opposite. Desegregation was upheld but racial imbalances, incorrectly applied, were shot down.

This was a correct decision as anyone would reading the 178 page opinions and ruling would surmise.

Deconstructing a Media Matters Post

Suze issued the challenge and I'm taking it. I am posting this as a new post because I need the full-text editing features. So let's start:

On the June 28 edition of NBC's Today, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory uncritically repeated the false claim made by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards received "big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory used the claim during an interview with Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, to argue: "If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric [by Coulter] against your husband and other Democrats, the point she's trying to make about your husband ... is in effect that he's disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it's a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory asked, "[I]s that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign?"

What's wrong here? Gregory is asking a question, as a journalist, about the effect of what Coulter says and he paraphrases her. What's he supposed to do, say "What are the effects of what that woman said?" He's not supposed to editorialize.

And what's with the stilted, Pravda-esque phrasing, "uncritically repeated the false claim". If MM takes itself seriously, why use the hyperbole? It destroys the objectivity of their claim.

Let's continue. I'm having fun here. The next paragraph is truly a theater of the absurd:

However, as Media Matters for America noted, in claiming that Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech," Coulter appeared to be distorting the earlier disclosure that Edwards received $55,000 for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis. While Edwards reportedly "chose to speak on 'Poverty, the great moral issue facing America,' " there is no evidence that he was speaking to a "poverty group" at the university. Furthermore, as Media Matters documented at the time, the widely repeated claim that Edwards "charged" UC-Davis for the speech ignored the fact that there was an admission fee to the event, which, combined with sponsorships, offset Edwards' speaking fee, according to his campaign.

MM is right that he wasn't speaking to a poverty group, apparently his speech was part of a Distinguished Speakers program sponsored by Western Health Advantage. But it's really funny that they're critical of Coulter's claim of $50,000 when it was actually $5,000 higher.

And I'm reasonably sure they are essentially correct about where that $55,000 came from, why use "charged" in quotations. $55,000 was charged for the affair. That's not a lie - it's the damn truth.

So, to conclude:

Gregory uses a legitimate interviewing technique as a reporter. MM goes insane because Coulter makes an off-hand comment that was, in important particulars, was pretty close to the truth. The important takeaways are that Edwards charges (or is offered) a helluva lot of money to speak at a college and gets $400 haircuts. These are legitimate things to question for a journalist.

So MM tries to paint the scoreboard as Coulter - Bad, Gregory - Bad, Mrs. Edwards - No Opinion, John Edwards - Good.

The true scorecard is Coulter - Bad, Gregory - Doing His Job, Mrs. Edwards - No Opinion, John Edwards - Questionable.

And that, dear friends, is propaganda.

Media Matters gets it right

Each time I get something from Media Matters I'm going to ask you to show me the "lie" or the "distortion". This way the topic is current, it's one topic, and there's no hard work to prove them wrong. No more excuses for you, Gonzo.

I just took the first one that came in:
NBC's Gregory repeated Coulter falsehood on Today

Joe Klein on Iraq

I usually don't like this guy but in this article he paints a very good assessment of what the deal is in Iraq.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1638128-1,00.html

Stossel on Big Government Conservatives

An interesting examination of the difference in Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian principles as they apply to education. John Stossel is right, as usual.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/biggovernment_conservatives.html

Great SCOTUS Ruling

Supreme Court strikes down voluntary integration in Seattle and Louisville public schools.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/06/court_strikes_d_1.html

Justice Roberts puts it the right way:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. On the two school plans, the majority found that the districts have "failed to provide the necessary support for the proposition that there is no other way than individual racial classifications to avoid racial isolation in their school districts."

Return to "Fairness"

You have got to be kidding me. I thought that it was a joke, that no one was serious about this.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html


Last I looked no one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to listen to talk radio. Stupid-ass liberals. Almost no one likes to hear their whiney, bizarro-world shit so they try to find ways to force them to.

Amnesty for Illegal Liberal Radio

Very funny. For those who can take a joke. From IMAO....
------------------------------------------

At the end of the Liberal-Reagan Airwave War, the Limbaugh Treaty clearly established AM talk radio as being the sovereign territory of conservative shows & hosts. Since that time there have been legal procedures in place to allow liberals to appear on radio, but too often, these laws have been flouted. Before examining a real solution, it's important to understand the problem of illegal liberal talk radio immigration.

Stealing jobs - It's often said that liberals are just "doing the jobs conservative radio talk show hosts won't do". At first glance, this seems true, since most liberal talk shows suck and end up at the bottom of the ratings heap.

Conservatives wouldn't want to do that, right?

But the thing is, most of these are low-skill, entry-level positions and would be filled by people just entering the work force. Unlike liberals, conservatives would eventually get better and move up, making room for the next generation.

Crime - Some people claim that "liberals are people, too". Interesting theory, but studies have shown that whenever liberals get illegally involved in talk radio, the crime rate skyrockets. Writing bad checks, stealing from children's charities, strangling kittens... the list of their heinous misdeeds goes on and on.

Welfare abuse - Let's lay to rest the myth of "the hard-working liberal". Most liberals who come to our airwaves illegally waste no time getting on the public dole where they are content to receive fat checks from NPR which they squander on crack, tofu, and hemp-based clothing items.

Disgraceful!

These criminals are aided and abetted by their liberal buddies in congress who propose to "solve" this problem with the so-called "Immigration Fairness Reform Doctrine Act", currently being touted by Senator Kucinich (D - Mind Control Space Laserton). I'll spare you all the legalistic mumbo-jumbo. What it boils down to is that it's just amnesty for the liberals who are already on talk radio, plus it reduces the barriers to letting more of them in.

And how will this new crop of tree-hugging patchouli-ferrets get their jobs?

By stealing them from hard working conservatives, that's how!
If that happens, talk radio will once again become the barren wasteland of lunacy it was before conservatives made the ideological desert of the airwaves bloom with laughter, song, and coherant thought.

But don't despair. There's a better solution. We could have REAL reform in four simple steps.
1) Protect the borders. We need to immediately set up fences around our radio stations. Fences with pointy barbed wire, and dog runs between them filled with rabid German Shepherds. And a minefield. Maybe a moat. Moats are cool. And we could put rabbits in the moat. Big, vicious swamp rabbits. Liberals are afraid of rabbits.

2) Mass deportation. Any liberals who are on our airwaves illegally should immediately be deported to whichever liberal arts campus or community college they came from. There they can go back to earing their PhD in Tolkein Mythology Studies or whatever they were working on before they got really stoned one night and accidentally signed up for Broadcast Communications classes. Plus, I hear the McDonald's in the student commons is hiring.

3) Take corporate greed out of the equation. Companies like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting know they can get away with hiring desperate, talentless liberals for pennies a day. There should be harsh fines and penalties for this sort of exploitation.

4) A real path to radio citizenship: learning English. It's simply not fair to radio audiences for them to have to put up with incomprehensible liberal monkey-jabber phrases like "Bush lied" or "global warming" or "conservative media bias". NO one understands what that garbage means! If they can't even master simple English grammar like not using the word "but" after the phrase "I support the troops", they have no business in the communications industry.
Sane, sensible, simple.

And although the illegal liberal problem seems insurmountable, common sense airwave reform IS possible. Contact your Senators and congressmen now and tell them to vote NO on the "Immigration Fairness Reform Doctrine Act".

The kitten you save may be your own.

The Sun is Hot

From imao.us

An MSNBC study found that journalists' political donations are 9 to 1 to Democrats and liberals. Journalists responded by vowing to hunt down that 1. Actually, there's this whole website Media Matters devoted to finding and destroying the insidious bias of that 1.

What I wonder about are the liberals who insist that the media isn't liberal despite all the evidence. There are even some who argue it's biased towards conservatives. That's pretty much like arguing the sun is cold.

LIBERAL: I hate the sun! It's so cold!
NORMAL PERSON: Um... the sun is hot.
LIBERAL: Really? Then give me one example of the sun being hot!
NORMAL PERSON: It's always hot. Right now, as we're speaking, the sun is hitting us with its heat.
LIBERAL: It's not hot; it's corporate biased... and it's cold!

Liberals are so stupid. Sometimes I want to burn them with fire -- which is hot. Before anyone misconstrues my point, I'm not saying that liberals should be burned with fire, I'm just saying that I find it entertaining when pain is inflicted upon them.

Ummm...Which Troops?

This is too funny.

On the Speaker's website, Pelosi mentions strengthening veteran's aid and has a picture of a serviceman speaking with a doctor.

Unfortunately, the serviceman is Canadian. It says "Canada" on the shoulder epaulets. There are other blogs that have the closeup picture.

The site's already been changed but several bloggers managed to get a screenshot before the change.

The Bloomberg Effect

Let's assume that Bloomberg is going to make an independent run for the Presidency and uses a good chunk of his personal $5 billion fortune to finance it.

Which side does this hurt the most?

While he has been a Republican for a few years his tenets are generally moderate to liberal. He's pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, and has signed into law in NYC several laws that would be considered "nanny state".

Something else to consider: He was elected by switching parties and then riding Rudy's coattails. If he's now going to go head-to-head with Rudy, if Rudy gets the nod, do folks gravitate from Rudy to Michael? Or do they stick with Rudy?

Here's my take: Bloomberg would become the Democratic Party's version of Ross Perot. Perot was very strongly pro-business and I think it's pretty clear that he drew more Republican votes than Democratic. Arguably he cost Bush Sr. the 1992 election.

Bloomberg may draw more heavily from moderate Democrats and independents than from the GOP depending on how moderate the GOP nominee is. If someone hardcore like Thompson or Romney gets the nod, Bloomberg picks up moderate Republican votes. I don't see it if Rudy is the choice.

On the Democratic side, I think Bloomberg would be either Hillary's or Obama's worst nightmare. Forget Edwards, snowballs chance in hell there.

You might end up with an election night split of 35% Dem, 40% GOP, 25% Ind. (Bloomberg).

Or maybe, if the electorate continues to be disgusted with Congress and the White House, he could actually win.

Ideas? Thoughts?

Worst Poll Numbers Ever Across the Board

Gallup reports that approval ratings for Congress are polling at the lowest level ever recorded by that orgranization. 14%.

On a specific issue, immigration, it gets even worse. According to a Zogby poll, Congress gets 3 (yes, THREE) percent support (Bush gets 9%). Wow. With a 1.1% margin it may even be worse.

Meanwhile, those wondrous students of honest criticism, Kos, killed a lot of innocent pixels today (I stole that phrase from Garrett) chortling about Bush's 26% rating; of course without mentioning how badly, much worse than Bush, the Democratic controlled Congress is viewed.

Way to go American people! You elect a bunch of clowns who are thought of even more badly than the clowns they replaced.

And Then There's Bloomberg on the Horizon Yet

He quietly changed his party affiliation to NOTA recently (!)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4560.html

A Great Speech

This is a great speech by Fred Thompson. This is oratory as an art form. You may not agree with everything he says but he says it with style, composure, and diplomacy. Please read and comment.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/remarks_to_policy_exchange_in.html

Here are some excerpts:

When the president of Iran shares his nightmare visions before cheering crowds, those are not just the fanatic's version of an empty applause line. The only safe assumption is that he means it. If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to "wipe out" an entire nation, we should listen. We must gather our alliance, and do all in our power to make sure that such men do not gain the capability to carry out their evil ambitions.....

We've been through a lot together, our two nations - and not just in the storied exploits of our parents' generation. Though there are many moments in British political history from which leaders today can take instruction, there is one in particular that I've always admired in the career of Sir Winston Churchill.

It was when Neville Chamberlain died in November 1940. In memorializing in the House of Commons his longtime adversary, Churchill pronounced the bitter controversies put to rest. He said, quote, "History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days."

In the end, he reflected, "The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions." We are "so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour."

Maybe it's the actor in me that admires this scene so much. It's a moment that no script-writer could improve upon. I am struck by its spirit, the magnanimity and generosity of the man ... the willingness to let old arguments go, and move on to great objectives held in common.

The Facts, Period

Can we all agree that articles or op-eds that start off with assertions that are demonstrably false are counter-productive to the general discourse?

That Blumenthal piece was thinly disguised propaganda building ideas on nonsense.

You can do better....I hope.

Kos and the Facts

It appears on this occasion that those little weenies you guys share kool-aide with were caught out. Enjoy. I don't expect comments, of course, since it fucks with your worldview.

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2007/06/did_daily_kos_w.html

Bush's European Disaster

by Sidney Blumenthal

Bush's European Disaster

selected quotes (boldface text is mine, italics are from the original):

High officials of European governments describe U.S. influence as squandered and swiftly eroding (one minister went down a list of Bush administration officials, rating them according to their stupidity), the country's moral authority nil. Lethal power vacuums are emerging from Lebanon to Pakistan, and Europeans are incapable on their own of quelling the fires that burn far closer to them than to the United States through their growing Muslim populations and proximity to the Middle East. ... Their faint hope -- and it is only a hope -- is that they have already seen the worst and that it is not yet to come. Even worse than Bush, from their perspective, would be another Republican president who continued Bush policies and also appointed neoconservatives. That would toll, if not the end of days, then the decline and fall of the Western alliance except in name only, and an even more rapid acceleration of chaos in the world order.

In Rome, on June 9, a reporter asked Bush about setting a deadline for Kosovo independence. "What? Say that again?" "Deadline for the Kosovo independence?" "A decline?" "Deadline, deadline." "Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good." Bush then declared, "In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come -- this needs to happen." The next day, asked when he would set a deadline, he replied, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Reminded of his previous statement, Bush said: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? OK, yes, then I meant what I said."

...Bush's proposal to put tracking stations for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic gave Putin his opening. In response, he offered a radar site in Azerbaijan to be jointly operated by the United States and Russia. Bush had deployed the wrong tactic on behalf of the wrong strategy. Bush's missile shield has not been proved to work, has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and has an uncertain purpose. Is the plan meant to reassure eastern European nations of the former Warsaw Pact, Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe," against Russia, or is it a short-term ploy to rally support in the one region in the world that still likes Bush because of deep residual pro-Americanism? If Bush intended to persuade Putin to temper his authoritarianism, he only succeeded in antagonizing the Russian leader. As Bush's "freedom" agenda has collapsed, he has reverted to a Plan B for a new ersatz Cold War. His ham-handed move allowed the adroit Putin to change the subject and corner him. Meanwhile, the engagement of Russia in areas of mutual interest -- containing Iran -- languishes.

Right-wing contradictions

Jerome a Paris@Kos points out an interesting contradiction in a recent FT op-ed.

NordicStorm also noted that Klaus did not have qualms using the following two sentences (which directly contradict one another) in the same article:

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions.

Let us resist the politicisation of science

This is their mindset. Science that agrees with our ideology is objective; science that disagrees is politicized, manipulated or debatable. Reality is not acknowledged.

Throw Da Bums Out

I was looking at the confidence numbers for Congress and the President today and they both show terrible approval ratings. Absolutely bad. Now, Bush is term-limited and is gone anyway next year but Pelosi and her new majority have got to be concerned about this. Or maybe not, maybe the agenda outweighs the popularity numbers. But I digress.

We were lied to in 1994. One of the tenets of the "Contract With America" was the imposition of Congressional term limits. It never happened. Instead, the new guys decided they liked pork and power and stayed around. A few backed out after a term or two on principle but that wasn't the rule.

Before I continue I'd like to say that I exempt the Senate from this idea because that's a more august, deliberative body and I'm not sure term limits are a good idea there.

Here's the idea: ALWAYS support the candidate either Dem or GOP as meets your principles running against any incumbent running for a third Congressional term. And I mean ALWAYS. I'd dearly love to organize a grassroots for this and perhaps someone can and will, but on general precepts can we agree that perpetual incumbancy is a BAD thing? I think we can.

Let's get rid of the insiders.

Blast from the past

I was just cleaning up my saved emails, when I came across the following comment on my blog from last year.

I can't believe you pulled the Plame incident into this, seeing as how the original story has been completely discredited. Turns out that it was all a lie, Garrett. And, as folks you don't care to believe have said all along, Joe Wilson is a partisan-motivated liar.

Why don't you try a bit harder to seek the truth in matters rather than rely on partisan rhetoric? At least it'll make these discussions interesting rather than ... as usual ... having me bitch-slap you in the end.

So, Gonzo, have you finally acknowledged that she was a covert agent when she was outed, or are you relying on Toensing's insistence that she was not "covert under the meaning of the act"?

Politics Outweighs the Public Good

County wants to rescind deal with radio station on broadcasting emergency info because it air's conservative content.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-churricane13jun13,0,4183214.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

What the article doesn't mention (why not?) is that WIOD is a blowtorch; one of the if not the most powerful AM transmitter in South Florida

Maybe The Guy Is Human After All

Fascinating story on Moore and his detractors..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113385/site/newsweek/

The Wall Street Journal Explains Their Values

In light of continuing rumors of takeover and buyout, the WSJ posted a great opinion piece on what drives their editorial style. A must read:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010173

Torture hurts us, too

It's a fundamental property of the universe: the observed acts on the observer.

"But you're trying to fight the bad guys," she said. She knows he is haunted. He got an honorable discharge after a diagnosis of "adjustment disorder." He startles awake, she said: "Last night you had a dream --"

"I never saw a ghost in Abu Ghraib," he said. "But I saw a ghost last night. It was me."

"Seeing innocent people being tortured is hard," she said.

"Not the things I saw, but the things I did. You keep saying 'torturing the innocent,' but the two brothers I tortured were guilty. It doesn't mean you should torture them."

Sen. Thomas of Wyoming Dies

One of the good guys. Didn't get involved in political bullshit and faithfully represented his state. One of a dying breed, similar to our great Senator Bill Nelson (D) of Florida. The way things are going I suspect that we'll all miss guys like this soon...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19038581/

The Troop Funding Trap

italics and bold in the commentary below are mine)
--------------------------------------------------------------
What are you supposed to do, according to supporters of the Iraq war, if you think that the war is a dreadful mistake? Suppose you are a member of Congress, elected by constituents who also, like most Americans, according to opinion polls, oppose the war. Is there any legitimate action you can take? Or must you simply allow the war to go on and let young Americans die in what you regard as a bad cause? What are your options?

The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have the Power . . . to declare War." That power does not mean much unless it includes the power not to declare war as well. But presidents from both parties have pretty much stolen Congress's war power, with the ordinarily "strict constructionist" Republicans taking the lead. Congress has stood by and not done much -- but what could it do? As Stalin supposedly said about military advice from the Vatican, "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?"

Last week President Bush condescended to sign a bill authorizing $100 billion for his war, but only after any serious timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal were stripped from the legislation. There was a time, circa 1999, when Republicans considered it the height of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American soldiers to commit any troops to action in a foreign country without what used to be called an "exit strategy." That was when the president was a Democrat. Now it is considered the height of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American soldiers to suggest the possibility of any exit strategy short of triumph. If you do, you are betraying the troops. And no one sees actual triumph in the cards, so there is no exit strategy.

And woe betide any politician who suggests that waiting for complete triumph might not be the only alternative -- just in case democracy, prosperity, peace and brotherhood don't flower in Iraq next week. Sens . Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed the war-funding bill because it lacked even the mealy-mouthed timetables in an earlier version that Bush vetoed.

For this they got crocodile tears from Sen. John McCain. Squandering a bit more of his war-hero capital, McCain came close to accusing the two leading Democratic presidential candidates of treason: "I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender." Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, with no known foreign policy expertise or even interest (unless you count his "mission" to France after college, trying to convert the French to Mormonism), attributed Clinton's and Obama's votes to "an inexperienced worldview on national security."

A confused Wall Street Journal editorial last week seemed to be addressing this question of how an elected representative might legitimately oppose a war in our democracy. It began by accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of cowardice. They "claim to oppose the war and want it to end, yet they refused to use their power of the purse to end it."

So there is a "power of the purse," you see. Congress can cut off funds for a war that people don't like. In this connection, older readers might recall the Iran-contra affair, in which sources of money were found to keep the contra war going in Nicaragua without Congress's even knowing about it. This met with the enthusiastic approval of the Wall Street Journal, even though funds you do not know about are hard to cut off.

But what happens if you, as a member of Congress, do attempt to use the power of the purse? Sens. Clinton, Obama and Chris Dodd (also running for president) voted against the final Iraq funding bill because all meaningful deadlines and timetables had been stripped out so that President Bush would sign it. That Wall Street Journal editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot[ing] to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut off a war by cutting off funds. Unless the Journal is in favor of undermining U.S. troops, this makes the alleged "power of the purse" unusable.

Advocates of the current war who enjoy the spectacle of war opponents caught in this trap of laws and logic had better hope that every military action a president chooses to engage in from here on out is as wonderful to them as is the war in Iraq. Because there is nothing war-specific about this line of argument. It would work just as well on an invasion of Canada or an aerial bombardment of Portugal. The president can do it if he wants to, and no one can legitimately stop him.

Of course, the president is elected, and in that sense he is acting as proxy for the citizens when he decides to take our country into a war. Right? Well, not quite. Let's leave aside the voting anomalies of the 2000 election. When this president first ran for national office, he campaigned on a platform of criticizing his predecessor for engaging in military action (in Kosovo and Somalia) without an exit strategy. He mocked the notion of trying to establish democracy in distant lands. He denounced the use of American soldiers for "nation-building." In 2000, if you were looking for a way to express your disapproval of the policies and prejudices that later got us into Iraq, your obvious answer would have been to vote for George W. Bush.
Check and mate.

By Michael Kinsley
Saturday, June 2, 2007; Page A13

The Troop Funding Trap

Typhoid Mary ... Errrr ... TB Andrew

The guy with XDR TB who travelled to Europe is interviewed by ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/Story?id=3231184&page=2

So what do you think about this guy? Is he culpably arrogant or just a doofus? I don't think he violated any laws but if anyone within a dozen yards of him on his journeys comes down with TB, I think he should have his ass sued off.

It's funny how his story is changing from "screw you" to "whoops" as time goes on.

Saint Libby

I have just one word: Eeeeew.

Listening to people who know what they're talking about...

...is always a good idea. Joe Sestak defended his recent vote for the Emergency Supplemental Bill as follows:

Last week, Congress voted on an emergency supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not what I wanted– it did not contain a date certain for redeployment that I had previously voted for and President Bush had vetoed. But it provided the resources our troops needed to be safe until September. I could not deprive the men and women of our armed forces those funds required for their security until they redeploy.

I saw combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The first was a just war; the second, a tragic misadventure. And since the day I announced for Congress, I have never deviated from what I said that day: a date certain to redeploy from Iraq within a year is the only viable strategy that will change the incentives for the political leaders of Iraq– along with Iran's and Syria's– to change their behavior and work for stability and an unfailed Iraqi state.

But I've run the Navy's $67 billion annual warfare program, and I know that annual defense money is only so fungible between defense funding accounts, and the account called "operations" will run out in July. The practical result is an America unable to then provide its servicemen and women what they need to defend themselves in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also know that redeploying out of an area of conflict is the most challenging of military operations, and to do it safely for our 140,000 military personnel– and the thousands of US civilians in Iraq– will take at least six months....

Kakistocracy - a REAL word! :-)

I learned a great new word to be applied to the Bush Administration: kakistocracy. It was apparently one of the Scripps Spelling Bee words, although I can't corroborate that.

Kakistocracy is, according to Encarta ("government by the most unscrupulous or unsuitable people, or a state governed by such people") and Wikipedia, ("rule by the least-able or least-principled of citizens...a form of government in which the people least qualified to control the government are the people who control the government.")

Can't think of a better description of the current state of affairs.